"When these are right out there with the bubble gum, they're going to be part of the date rape cocktail," said Karen Brauer, president of Pharmacists for Life.

Plan B and bubblegum = date rape? What the fuck?

Fetzie wrote:The Defias Brotherhood is back, and this time they are acting as racketeers in Goldshire. Anybody wishing to dance for money must now pay them protection money or be charged triple the normal amount when repairing.

Fridmarr wrote:But as I said, this has ramifications that go well beyond those kids and their parents, and I don't think it would work anyhow. It's certainly not justified because the school system isn't properly dealing with those kids now. Good grief, if the school system is allowing shit like that to go on, the LAST thing you should want to do is increase that system's power and authority.

I'm all for making sure folks are not taking advantage of their government assistance, but basing that assistance on the performance of their child isn't the answer. It doesn't even make sense.

Honestly Klaud, it surprises me that this idea doesn't flat out revolt you. It's text book social conservative republican ideology. The same shit that limited gov't conservatives try to distance themselves from.

Oh yeah, it does, but at the same time I see why the teachers support the idea.

It's also the same reason why I didn't follow up with the PPR test to become a teacher myself, and why my mom retired from teaching after 35 yrs.

"When these are right out there with the bubble gum, they're going to be part of the date rape cocktail," said Karen Brauer, president of Pharmacists for Life.

Plan B and bubblegum = date rape? What the fuck?

While I don't really agree with what she said, she wasn't saying anything remotely close to that. She was saying that those that spike a woman's drink to rape them, will now include this in the drink. It is a really dumb comment, but she wasn't making a link between bubble gum and rape.

"When these are right out there with the bubble gum, they're going to be part of the date rape cocktail," said Karen Brauer, president of Pharmacists for Life.

Plan B and bubblegum = date rape? What the fuck?

While I don't really agree with what she said, she wasn't saying anything remotely close to that. She was saying that those that spike a woman's drink to rape them, will now include this in the drink. It is a really dumb comment, but she wasn't making a link between bubble gum and rape.

Not to be horribly pedantic or anything but, would that even work? Does the drug rely on a base digestive system release rate or will it work just as well if you absorb the entire thing immediately?

I have no idea to be honest, but I have a hard time buying that even if it did work, the lack of access to it is what is keeping some douchebag from attempting to rape someone. Something tells me that they'd either wear a condom, or figure out a way to get it now, even with the prescription requirement. It's not like these folks are particularly concerned about laws.

Basically it's a super-dose of the hormones found in normal birth control pills. So taking it shortly before sex should have it work just fine. Unless there's already a fertile egg in the uterus, in which case it wouldn't be very effective. Of course, there's really not much you can do in a case like that. There are a (very) few anti-implantation drugs, but those are controlled and only available by prescription. I don't see very many of them in my line of work and only hear about it rarely. Anyone able to afford them (as I'm pretty sure they aren't covered under any health insurance, and they're relatively new, maybe 2-3 years on the market) can likely afford a long-term option like an IUD.

If anything, it might provide more evidence against someone to convict of first degree rape in cases like this. If they can find the pharmacy where the person bought the plan B beforehand, they'll have video evidence and probably credit card receipts showing that the crime was premeditated, which could lead to a higher conviction rate and sentence length. Silver linings, etc...

- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.

Fridmarr wrote:But as I said, this has ramifications that go well beyond those kids and their parents, and I don't think it would work anyhow. It's certainly not justified because the school system isn't properly dealing with those kids now. Good grief, if the school system is allowing shit like that to go on, the LAST thing you should want to do is increase that system's power and authority.

I'm all for making sure folks are not taking advantage of their government assistance, but basing that assistance on the performance of their child isn't the answer. It doesn't even make sense.

Honestly Klaud, it surprises me that this idea doesn't flat out revolt you. It's text book social conservative republican ideology. The same shit that limited gov't conservatives try to distance themselves from.

Thinking more about it, I was thinking of a compromise. You really don't remove assistance to the families, but you do reduce it by a set percentage, conversely... if the kid does really well, you reward the family by increasing their assistance by a set percentage.

Thinking more about it, I was thinking of a compromise. You really don't remove assistance to the families, but you do reduce it by a set percentage, conversely... if the kid does really well, you reward the family by increasing their assistance by a set percentage.

There's no reward in the system unless they're actually getting welfare beyond what they should be (and if that's the case, the hell is the point of the welfare system?), it's just straight punishment.

More, you're putting income in the hands of a kid, adding pressure on top of the pressures of school/being a kid. It's all a recipe for superflaw.

Some kids are just not as good at exams. Some kids walk in with no study and ace it.

It will probably pass because to be politically correct you have to assume that all people are in fact equal and therefore equally capable of performing in school. In reality, you don't generally find brilliant people who can't do any better in life than to collect welfare money, so welfare recipients tend to be in the lower-IQ range, the genes for which they pass along to their children, along with study habits and general attitude toward school that the kids learn from their parents.

Welfare kids are, in general, screwed on both the nature and nurture fronts. That's why success stories about kids emerging from the ghetto to do well in life are interesting. If it was commonplace, it wouldn't be interesting.

Koatanga wrote:It will probably pass because to be politically correct you have to assume that all people are in fact equal

You've mentioned this a couple of times, so I think it's worth pointing out that your understanding of how this works does not seem to be accurate.

No where in the constitution (to include the bill of rights), is there a mention about men being created equal. That "prose" comes from the Declaration of Independence which isn't a legislative document. The closest thing the constitution has is the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Regardless, the notion (even in the Declaration of Independence) has never been understood to mean anything other than equal standing under the law. It's quite obvious that people are not in fact equal, and that's never been a legislative standard in the US. This particular legislation is definitely not "politically correct" in any sense of the expression. Heck, considering the demographics of folks whom would be penalized, it's actually quite at odds with the notion of political correctness.

fuzzygeek wrote:I think it was more a reference to one party demanding Equality of Outcome, whilst the other demands Equality of Opportunity. One stance is certainly seen as being more "PC" than the other.

I'd have more respect for the "Equality of Opportunity" folks if opportunity was, in fact, equal, when it's so blindingly obvious that the opportunities for a kid whose parents went to Harvard are miles above the opportunities of a ghetto kid.

Paxen wrote:I'd have more respect for the "Equality of Opportunity" folks if opportunity was, in fact, equal, when it's so blindingly obvious that the opportunities for a kid whose parents went to Harvard are miles above the opportunities of a ghetto kid.

In wildly other news, any thoughts on this whole "Operation Northwoods" thing running around the internet? It looks like lame conspiracy fodder to me, but considering the responsibilities of think tanks it's not impossible that it's legit. Think tanks are there specifically to come up with off-the-wall contingency plans (including things that will probably NEVER happen like zombie outbreaks and alien invasions), and it could be a legitimate think tank plan. Although it stinks to absolute high heavens that it wasn't declassified during an automatic review like most other declassified documents (at 10/25/50/75 years - this one was declassified at 51 years). Although it could've been late just because of a backlog in the classification review system.

- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.

But to stay on the subject matter, it is an idea that causes its own failure. If my family recieves les welfare because my kid does poorly in school, how am I then to support the kid to do better, when I have even more trouble making ends meet? its not something that causes less stress and more time/surplus to help and tutor my kid to become better, and I just lost a chunk of money that could possibly have been invested in a tutor.

Not if we wanut kids to have a better outcome, we (yeah, "we", though I'm not US) should incentivize extra help - kid doing poorly in school? you qualify for an extra "check" for tutelage - quite easy to avoid scamming as it could just be a school run programme, or the money went straight to the tutor (who should be approved by a relevant authority)